Companies may no longer be able to advertise for graduates as it could class
as age discrimination against older workers, following a court ruling.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said an older employee was indirectly discriminated against on the grounds of age when he was denied access to a new top salary band at work, because he did not have a law degree.

The judgment ruled that Terence Homer, an ex-police officer who worked as an adviser on the Policy National Legal Database, was at a disadvantage in comparison with younger workers because he did not have time to complete a law degree before his retirement date, meaning he could never achieve the promotion.

Employment lawyers said the ruling would have wide implications for private sector workers and how companies went about recruiting and promoting staff in future.

"Employers will have to be cautious approach to requiring job applicants to have a degree, or failing to promote employees without a degree," said Chris Wellham, employment lawyer at Hogan Lovells law firm.

"It will question whether high levels of experience is an acceptable substitute to having a degree," Mr Wellham said.

Related Articles

The ruling will be welcomed by older workers who feel they are at a disadvantage when going for high-paid jobs compared to younger staff, as they may never have obtained a degree, despite having years of experience and skills.

Many employers advertise jobs for candidates with degrees, with some industries, such as engineering, manufacturing and law, requiring degrees as a minimum. It is often harder for older workers with comparable experience to compete for jobs as a result.

The Homer case could revolutionise job adverts by outlawing the terms "graduate" or "degree-qualified", in much the same way that "enthusiastic" and "energetic" are words that are rarely used by employers for fear of being accused of looking for only younger staff.

Since 2006, age discrimination rules have prevented employers from specifying the number of years' experience required for roles because it could discriminate against younger workers.